Scientists beg to differ

 Relatives of Soldiers Killed in Iraq Mourn
Another sad story that except their family and friends, will for the most part fade into the nation's collective memeory of many tragedies caused by an unnecessary war war based on lies. Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker are already being used by the right as bloody tokens of of their self righteous hypocrisy. These soldiers were killed by terrorists that were able to occupy Iraq for one reason that should never be forgotten, George Bush's lies and incompetence at dealing with both terrorism and Iraq. It is unfortunate, with the deepest respect for his memory and sacrifice that Tucker and his family believed that he was in Iraq protecting America. As far as threats go Iraq was and is a more of a threat to itself and its own people then the United States. It is not and never could have been the "front" in the war on terror". There is no front when you're facing a transnational organization. THEY, the terrorists are simply out there. Seeing Iraq in terms of winning something there that will end Islamic terrorism is just an illusion or rather its a product that has been packaged and sold to the American public like a sick gag gift. Iraq has created more terrorists, more terrorism and drained our resources from tracking down terrorists and building diplomatic bridges to those that would much rather live in peace then constant fear. These two soldiers did not die for nothing; because of Bush's hubris and incompetence there are troops in Iraq and they have daily missions to complete and despite some pretty awful incidents the mass of those soldiers and marines have acted with honor and courage; everyday that Bush and his unhinged supporters insist on continuing on the same course that has caused so much unnecessary death and hardship for so many, is just another day that we risk losing some more good citizens not because the terrorists are winning, but because Bush and his right-wing echoes do not know how to win. Since they have insisted on winning something that they cannot define and following the same wrong headed strategy over and over again one can only assume that there is something deeply disturbed about these neocons, these pretend patriots. Something that if it is not madness is all too close to madness.
Like most American's of every political shade I supported going to Afghanistan after Bin Laden and while Bush and Company managed to blow that too ( too many bombs hitting too many women and children, plus letting Bin Laden get away) I was still willing to give Bush something like a pass. The kind of pass I'd give anyone. We're all human we all screw-up now and then, but if any country was ripe for nation building it was Afghanistan, a country that is relatively isolated from the hectic deep divisions of the middle-east, but in large part because Bush and his conservative cheerleaders wanted to move on to Iraq, Afghanistan was left as the poor stepchild and we continue to pay the price for that, Revived Taliban waging 'full-blown insurgency'

Four and a half years after they overthrew the Islamic militia that had controlled much of Afghanistan, U.S.-led forces have been forced to ramp up the battle to stabilize this impoverished, shattered country. More than 10,000 U.S., Canadian, British and Afghan government troops are scouring southern and eastern Afghanistan in a campaign called Operation Mountain Thrust.

Even before fighting heated up this spring, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, warned Congress that the insurgents "represent a greater threat" to the pro-U.S. government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai "than at any point since late 2001."

News like this should, in a rational world make even Bush supporters, largely the far right fringe at this point pause and wonder about the neocon crews tactical competence. We are now basically fighting the second war in Afghanistan because Bush couldn't get the first one right daisy cutter bombs and all.
If in 2000 or 2004 we put a two dozen high profile conservatives in a room and picked one at random what are the odds that a more incompetent pathological liar could have been chosen as president then G. W. Bush, The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light

One example out of many comes in Ron Suskind's gripping narrative of what the White House has celebrated as one of the war's major victories: the capture of Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002. Described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations even after U.S. and Pakistani forces kicked down his door in Faisalabad, the Saudi-born jihadist was the first al-Qaeda detainee to be shipped to a secret prison abroad. Suskind shatters the official story line here.

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and

Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics —

Which brings us back to the unbalanced Abu Zubaydah. "I said he was important," Bush reportedly told Tenet at one of their daily meetings. "You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" "No sir, Mr. President," Tenet replied. Bush "was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth," Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, "Do some of these harsh methods really work?" Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress,

No one that is concerned, genuinely concerned about terrorism and the loss of life can support these mad men. We're way beyond hyperbole in describing the cretins that run this country. I have these old fashioned ideals about political discourse as many Americans still do even in this age of Rovian character assassination, but how do you engage in rational discourse with mad men, and supporters that seem even more rabid. This post from Unclaimed Territory points out some of the problems we face, Why respond to Malkin?

As a quick example of the process of transmission, let's look at Malkin for a case in point. Michelle claims that conservatives "zealously police their own ranks" to guard against extremism. I already wrote a post about her apologetics for Coulter's extremism, but what about Malkin herself? Does she transmit extremist views? Yes, she does. As Alex Koppelman has noted, Malkin keeps in her blogroll, an organization that has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group with ties to white supremacism and which runs Malkin's syndicated columns.* The interesting thing about Koppelman's link is that he frames his post with a rant from Bill O'Reilly about how "far left" extremists are allowed on television to push their views but right-wing extremists like the KKK aren't, followed by O'Reilly bringing on Michelle Malkin who gives extremist views a

Hume's Ghost does a very nice job of explaining why the cultish likes of Malkin-Coulter-O'Reilly need to be confronted. It is not enough to leave comments on posts calling them names. For those that write blogs or send e-mails and faxes, you have to get at the grist of what they are spouting and say why and how it is wrong. If you're one of those people that is good at injecting a clever retort or humor into your rebuttal that's great, but just calling them hate mongers, which they are, is not enough.

This woman who has the nerve to assert that God endorses her politics alone has apparently never read Exodus 20:16: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." She asserts that "liberals" are "godless". Apparently, Jimmy Carter, possibly the most devout President in US history, didn't get the memo. She asserts that evolution is a "liberal" religion which has no evidence supporting it. Scientists beg to differ.

The party of puritanical hypocrites appears to be running on the adultery platform in 2008, The Good Husbands

Steve Benen of the Carpetbagger Report has an interesting piece in the latest issue of The Washington Monthly, noting that three of the top potential Republican candidates are admitted adulterers.

and a direct link to Steve, High Infidelity

Lurking just over the horizon are liabilities for three Republicans who have topped several national, independent polls for the GOP's favorite 2008 nominee: Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce). Together, they form the most maritally challenged crop of presidential hopefuls in American political history.